Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1887-04-09
- - 49, ouessleg.

banks Of Newfoundland, In the gulf OF
st. Lawrence, and IN the bays and along
the Canadian coasts generally. This
treaty was abrOgated by the war Of 1872,
and IN the treaty Of Client at the close
OF that conflict no provisions were made
concerning the fisheries
As disputes then arose, the convention
Of 1918 drew up the particulars Of a
treaty to settle this matter. Its first ar
tiele provided that, ''The inhabitants OF
the United States shall have forever, in
common with the subjects of his Britain
bic majesty, the liberty to take fish Of
every kind on that part Of the southern
coast Of Newfoundland which extends
from cape Ray to the Ramean islands;
on the western and northern coasts Of
Newfoundland from the said cape Ray
to the Quirpon Islands," on the shores
OF the Magdalen islands, and also on
Labrador; also that the American fish
Emen shall have liberty forever to dry
end cure fish In any Of the unsettled
aays, harbOrs and creeks Of the southern
bart OF the coast Of Newfoundland here
p owe described and Of the coast OF La
ab dor''-such right to terminate when
bra portions become settled. On the
anyr hand, the United States agreed to
otheounce any liberty heretofore enjoyed
or claimed by the inhabitants thereof to
take, dry, or cure fish on or within three
marine miles OF any Of the coasts, bays,
creeks, or hRrbors Of his Britannia males
tvs dominions in America" and were
only to enter such bays or harbOrs for
shelter or to obtain wood or water. In
addition to our rights under this treaty OF
1918, the reciprocity treaty Of 1854 gave
up the right to take fish Of every kind,
except shellfsh, on the sea coasts and
shores and IN the bays, harbOrs and
creeks Of Canada, New Brunswick, No
va Scotia, Prince Edwards Island, and
to land for the purpose Of drying nets,
curing fish, etc, providing we did not
interfere with the rights Of private prop
erty.
In return for these concessions the
United States gave the Canadians the
right to inshore fishing on her shores
and also agreed to allow free trade be-
tween the people Of the two countries.
1t would seem that the people Of the
United States should be able to compete
with those Of Canada, but they did not
think themselves so, and soon began to
clamOr for the restoration Of the old tar
if. Accordingly in 1866 the United
States withdrew from the treaty, having
given the requisite twelve months notice
the year before.
In framing the provisions Of the treaty
Of Washington In 1871 the British mem
bers Of the negotiating commission de-
sired to settle the fisheries question by
restoring the reciprocity treaty. To this
the Americans would not consent, but
they offered, as the equivalent Of the in
shore fishing right that they desired, to
admit free of duty fish and fish oils ex-
ported from the Canadas to the United
States. "Inasmuch as it was asserted"
to use the language Of the treaty
that the privileges accorded to the citi-
zens Of the United States were Of greater
value than those granted to the Caua-
dians, It was further agreed that q com
mission should be appointed with power
to examine and award a money indemni-
tyStO the party prOfting least by the COM
pact.
The commission appointed consisted
of Ensign Il. Kellogg, cf Massachusetts,;
! Sir Alexander T. Gait, of Canada; and
Maurice Delfosse, the Belgian minister
at Washington. It was asserted that
| the choice Of M. DeIfosse was made by
| the Canadian minister, and that this gen
tlemRn had been bought beforehand to
assure his consent to the exOrbitant
award demanded by Canada. The votes
of Sir Alexander Gait aud Mr.. DelfOsse
then awarded to Canada $5,5O0,000 for
the twelve years duration of the treaty.
The government at Washington protest
| ed, pointing out that the entire net profit
on the inshOre fisheries was but S25, 600
per year, or 100000 for the term of
| twelve years, to say nothing Of the re-
mission Of the fish and oil duties, esti-
mated to be worth to Canada at least
| S350,00O. However, after a somewhat
angry correspondence, the United States
paid the award. 1t would seem that if
/ Canada really needed such large sum
| to reimburse her for the loss OCOasiOned
ny our fishing on her shores, she would
| scarcely be very anxious to renew the
| treaty when the subsidy had been with
drawn. Yet it was asserted that the
cause Of the OverbeaEing conduct Of the
auth critics Of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick toward New England fisher
men was the unWillingness on the part Of
| this country to renew the treaty. June
80, 1885, the treaty Of Washington eZ-
pired by limitation.
By mutual agreement with the Brit
ish foreign office, President Cleveland
| proclaimed an extension Of tie fishery
agreements for six months, urging, Con
! gress to provide In the meantime for a
renewal of the treaty in this regard, as
! the United States must otherwise fall
| back on her old mesger rights under
the treaty Of 1878. This agreement, OF
course, did not prevent the restoration
Of the fish duty, which was, IN the
! case Of the United States, one cent per
pound. The New England fishermen
It appears, considered the advantage
given them by the duty more than sufti-
Gent to OFFSET their additional rights IN
der the treaty, and they therefore pro-
! tested against its renewal. Accordingly,
on Dec. 81, 1885, the fishery clauses were
allowed to lapse without further discus
sion. With the opening Of the fishery
! season of 1886, therefore fresh disputes
/ began. First, the New England fisher
] erInan wanted to land at the northern
ports as usual to ship crews Of fisher
men and purchase bait, but the local au-
/ thoritiss forbade il, reminding theRl that
under the treaty Of 1913 they could
] and only for water or fuel. The change
n the manner Of catching the fish Of
ate years has made the question Of bait
an exceedingly important one. This
s'5ait' is small fish cut up In bits, which
| is thrown into the water to sttract the
| larger fish. This must be used as fresh